Gihwa and the Korean Buddhist-Confucian Debate

Recently, I was stumbling around the website of Professor Charles A.C. Muller and found a really interesting document written by a Korean Buddhist monk named Gi-Hwa (기화, 己和, 1376 – 1433)1 who had been a Confucian scholar but then coverted later. This page is a debate between Buddhism as defended by Gi-Hwa against his former comrades in the Neo-Confucian school. It seems that at the time, there was an intense debate about Buddhism’s presence in Korea, which conservative Confucians felt was responsible for the problems of the day, and Gi-Hwa deftly refutes their criticisms while clearing up some misconceptions.

The funny thing, as I read this, some of the same misguided criticisms of Buddhism are echoed even today. You could almost replace the Neo-Confucians from that era with certain conservative-religious groups in the West today and get almost the same arguments. Try it and I hope you’ll see what I mean. I laughed out loud as I read some parts because Gi-Hwa’s answers are so common-sense.

Some highlights I wanted to call out (translations by Prof. Muller):

[The Confucians argue] saying: alcohol is the lubricant for festive gatherings; it relaxes the blood flow and wards off the effects of the cold. It also is used to summon the spirits at the sacrifice. It is not something that we can do without. But the Buddha has forbidden it in his precepts. Is this not excessive?

[In response to this, I] say: alcohol is the root cause of dissolution of the spirit and the decay of virtue, bringing deep harm to the Way. Therefore the Vinaya contains over thirty-six entries that point out its dangers. The Confucian scholars themselves have clearly noted its faults, saying: “Inside, it dulls the will, outside, it ruins one’s deportment.” These words well clarify the extreme nature of its dangers. Dulling the will within, it blocks self-cultivation; ruining one’s deportment without, it impairs one’s ability to teach others. Not only is there no benefit for oneself and others: it invites calamity without limit.

And:

[The Confucians criticize,] saying: “Within the human arena, the matter of sending off departed souls is a grave one.” Therefore, one cannot fail to take the matter of preparing a proper funeral for one’ parents with grave seriousness. The sages taught people the proper order for a rich funeral to send off one’s departed parents, in order to demonstrate the gravity of [their death]…Therefore when it comes to burying the dead, one must select the proper land, make the burial hole deep, make lavish its ritual, plant trees in abundance and store up water. You must deepen your yin and nurture your vital force. The earth must be rich in nutrients and not poor. Then your descendants will prosper and the family sacrifice will continue without interruption.

Now the Buddhists, not reflecting on this principle, have foolishly established the custom of cremation, causing people to lose their posterity, cutting off their descendants. Is this not excessive? Even more, how can the children bear to watch such a sight as the cremation of their parents? In this confusion, people transgress against heaven itself.

[In response to this, I] say: …It is the great standard that has been transmitted to the world. If you cannot bear to do cremation, then go ahead and dig a hole and bury your parents. Can you stand this? Nowadays there are, at the foot of the mountains, and in the midst of great plains, numerous ancient graves, which have all become plowed under by farmers. Skulls are scattered around like the stars; they are baked by the sun and blown in the wind, without anyone to look after them. This happens in spite of the fact that the original owners of the gravesites did not fail to set up stones and plant evergreens to decorate the grounds, so that they could plan on the prosperity of their descendants and the unbroken continuity of the family sacrifice. So how is it that they have ended up like this?

And:

[The Confucians complain, saying:] The only Way in the world which deserves our veneration is that of the five emperors and three kings, and nothing more. Therefore that which was explained by Confucius, the sages, and the patriarchs, and has been successively transmitted by the worthies serves as the support for all methods [of governing] and is a standard for statehood that all respect. This Way is to be sought in the Middle Kingdom, and is not to be sought among the barbarian tribes. The Buddha was a Western barbarian. How is it that his Way came to permeate the Middle Kingdom? The story about Mingdi of the Han seeking the dharma in the Western regions is vague and unclear.

[In response to this, I] say: He who embodies the Way is the one who the people will rely upon. Since the Way was embodied by the five emperors and three kings, the people relied upon them, and thus they were the rulers of China. The Buddha’s flourishing in India as a king who turned the wheel of the dharma, is the same sort of thing. The Chinese referring to India as the West, is just the same as the Indian’s referring to China as the East. If we want to find the great center of the world, then it would be the place where no shadow can be seen at twelve noon, and this also happens in India. Since the Buddha appeared to the world in India, why not regard India as the “great center” of the world?

And finally:

[The Confucians complain,] saying: If you examine their texts, you will see that they endeavor toward vacancy and revere annihilation…

[In response to this, I] say: …As far as the accusations of nihilism are concerned, among the twelve divisions of the tripiṭaka, what text can you cite which contains the phrases “vacancy” and “nihilation” ? The Mahāyāna precepts says: “Filial devotion is the dharma of the ultimate Way. ‘Filiality’ is called ‘morality;’ it is also called ‘restraint.’ ” Can you arbitrarily call this “vacant?” The Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment says: “[Your] mind-flower will blossom, illuminating all the worlds in the ten directions.” Can this arbitrarily be called “nihilation?” If you want to determine a teaching’s truth or falsity, you must first examine its texts. If, without examining its texts, you mistakenly disparage it, you will definitely be the object of derision among scholars of ability.

Enjoy!

P.S. Off-schedule post, but just felt like passing this along. :)

1 I am only dimly familiar with Korean language, but like Japanese it has its own syllabary (alphabet). Unlike Japanese, Korean language uses its alphabet, called hangul, almost exclusively and only uses Chinese characters (called hanja) for limited use such as in Buddhism. Hence, I posted both. 기화 is the native Korean “hangul” while 己和 is the Chinese “hanja”.


Be the first to like this post.

Leave a Reply

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo
Twitter picture

You are commenting using your
Twitter account. (Log Out)

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your
Facebook account. (Log Out)

Connecting to %s